The project I'm testing this pilot credit with meets all but requirement 8, so the pilot credit has been "met". We've all worked on projects where an active use, lively peeks into a building's activities and multiple access points serve to "activate the street", particularly in dense urban areas with pedestrian activity. However, I wonder if there might be alternative ways of looking at this particular requirement. I'm looking at a courthouse, a building type that has programmatic reasons for not having 70% of the street front façade in windows or doors. It also has created a public plaza, a bosque of shade trees and a water feature in front of the "non-windowed art wall" that invite the public into the space. It seems as though creating this public space provides a reasonable alternative to the transparency of the facade itself. The solutions might be associated with particular setbacks from the street (large, in this case). Have alternatives to the glazed/opening percentage been proposed before? Perhaps in LEED ND? Curious.
Meeting 8 of 9 requirements is pretty stringent. Has that threshold proven viable?
You rely on LEEDuser. Can we rely on you?
LEEDuser is supported by our premium members, not by advertisers.
Go premium for
Qiongwen Kong
ArchitectCooper Carry
2 thumbs up
November 4, 2016 - 4:25 pm
Hi Margaret, we have a similar question where the primary facade has a historical brick wall that curves along the sidewalk. Per request of the city we cannot remove it and have included it into the facade design. Essentially the wall is covering (partially) 100% storefront glazing. As the street has a slope, it doesn't cover the whole level, but it does cover the same height as a person is walking along the sidewalk. In our opinion it's not decreasing the walkability/enjoyment of the sidewalk, but we also don't technically meet the 70% window/door coverage.